All those abstaining, please rise.
The Member for Yellowknife Centre.
The results of the recorded vote are: four in favour, 11 opposed, one abstention. The motion is defeated.
---Defeated
To clause 42 as amended.
---Clauses 42 through 49
Ms. Green.
Mr. Chair, I request that you rise and report progress. Thank you.
Ms. Green, do you wish to move a motion?
I move that the chair rise and report progress. Thank you.
There is a motion to report progress. The motion is in order and non-debatable. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
---Defeated
I will sit here in this chair and keep going. Clause 50.
Agreed.
Clause 51. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This clause governs benefits prescribed in respect to measures to provide benefits to people of the Northwest Territories. What is the practical instrument force that is contemplated by this clause? Is it a socio-economic agreement? Can the Minister confirm that? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, it is, but we still need the flexibility. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you. What does that mean, we need the flexibility? I am unclear on that. I wasn't proposing any changes to this. I was asking: is it a socio-economic agreement? What flexibility is the Minister indicating in his response? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Legislation needs to be built in a way that can be flexible to allow for the evolution of tools we use to maximize benefits. What tools we use and how are best left to regulations. That is because the industry is dynamic and people are dynamic and the kinds of benefits available are dynamic. It is a fast-changing industry. Adding a prospective list to the legislation would actually undermine our government's ability to be dynamic enough and act in the best interests of the residents of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Testart.
Thank you. I am not sure what list the Minister is referencing. There is list that is being proposed. I am asking very clear questions about what this means because I am hoping to get a clear policy intent for the public that is listening to these proceedings. If the Minster could be careful to understand the questions and I will be careful to read them clearly. This section is quite broad in its application. If I am to assume that this is to legislate socio-economic agreements, what is the government's vision for this? Is it to legislate socio-economic agreements to be binding on industry? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is a tool which is currently under review. As I have stated to the Members during this Assembly, this is part of the reason why we approached this provision with flexibility in mind. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Testart.
Flexibility is one way to put it. I would call it intentionally vague. The committee received evidence that that is what was intended here: to make it intentionally vague so it could be plugged by regulations. My concern is that this is so wide-reaching, it could cover every aspect of the mineral cycle, including exploration. Can the Minister confirm that the intention of the section is solely restricted to the conditions that cause socio-economic agreements to arise, namely production? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our current practice is not to have it for exploration, but we want to see it for construction phase and operations and, lastly, the closure section. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you. That was very clear. That is what industry is looking at when they see a section like that that is so vague you could drive a truck through it, having that kind of certainty. If a socio-economic agreement is so signed that is governed by this section, if a company or mining project isn't able to meet the terms of the agreement, will regulations be drafted to create some sort of penalty if the agreement is breached in any measurable way? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Our current SEAs are best efforts. Government is working with the mining proponents together to meet targets and using the collaborative approach. This has all been done without legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you. I think that system works very well. Yet, we have this clause. What is the intention of this clause? Is the intention of this clause to change best efforts? Sorry. What is the policy direction? Will this clause be used to change the state of play away from best efforts and towards prescribed benefits for the public? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The answer is no. Currently, we use best efforts along with the proponents and Indigenous governments to make best efforts for the residents of the Northwest Territories through SEAs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Testart.
Just once more for clarity, the Minister will confirm that the government's position on this clause is to continue the practice of best-effort socio-economic agreements moving forward into the regulations? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This enabling authority allows us to put behind SEAs or whichever tool it evolves in the future to modernize our measures for benefits. It allows us to have a statutory enabling authority behind them because, currently, right now, we do not have that. Within those regulations, they could be designed however appropriate. Even within, for example, socio-economic agreements that were enabled under legislation, the content of the agreement itself could still have terms phrased as best efforts. I don't think this enabling authority sets any rules. It allows us to have the flexibility, as we said, to work with the proponent to find the best way to maximize benefits. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Testart.
Could this section be used to enable regulations that creates a penalty regime if companies aren't able to meet their benefits governed by this section? Yes or no. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Ms. McLaughlin.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. There is a counterpart regulation-making authority with respect to section 51. If it is okay to note it, it is 111(1)(u), and the language there is "respecting requirements in respect of measures." That provides benefits to the people of the Northwest Territories. "Requirements in respect of measures" could include a series of things, but there are no more particulars that indicate that penalties would flow from parts of that "requirements with respect to measures." Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. What I am trying to seek clarity on is, A, how broad is this, and I think we've learned it's fairly broad; and B, given that, most likely, this will not change from its current form tonight, let's give crystal clear certainty what the government plans to do with this moving forward.
The Minister can say that there are no concerns from industry or investor confidence. We've got correspondence that says this section is very vague. So if he could just put on the public record tonight that this is just codifying what is currently going on in the Northwest Territories and there are no plans to change it, that would be a comfort to me and a comfort, I think, to our home audience. Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The reason we have this in here is to incur benefits for NWT residents. That's what we will continue to do, and that's why we have it in here, and we are subject to improvement going forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Testart.
I'll interpret that as "no." The fact that we don't know where this is headed, that it's incredibly broad, those were the initial concerns of committee, and I really hope that gets resolved tonight, that there is some clarity on this, because this is a big hole in this legislation that is solved by regulations, and we don't get to decide those, and we don't know what those are going to look like. So we need some certainly on this, and if all we could get is policy certainty tonight, I'd be happy, but we couldn't even get that. So I still have grave concerns around this section. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Clause 51. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, I, too, have very major concerns around section 51. Look, I'm all for benefits, and even if we have to legislate them, I'm fine with that. It could codify best practice, but this is written in such a broad, vague, permissive fashion it could mean anything. I understand what the Minister has said he intends to do; the problem is he may not be the Minister who develops the regulations in the 19th Assembly. It could be somebody else. It could be me; imagine that.
So the purpose that I heard the Minister talk about earlier was providing clarity, certainty, setting out expectations, all of those good things. That's not what section 51 does. This is the ticking time bomb in the bill. This could allow a Minister to reach back into the exploration phase and require benefits. The way this is worded, there is no specific trigger identified. There is no specific list of benefits. Benefits don't even have a definition in the bill. I've heard what the intentions are, but that's not what this reads.
Just to be really clear, what would be the trigger that would require benefits under section 51? Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'd like to ask that of the Minister. Thank you.
Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is enabling authority, and each regulation underneath this enabling authority for benefits, the measures, let's say, would have to set a trigger for that measure, for example socioeconomic agreements. I think, when you are referring to certainty, this enabling authority is meant to provide our population, the residents of the Northwest Territories, that what they expect from mining, benefits, is enshrined in the legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
